Overview of Eight Year’s
Scholarly Achievements by
the Japan “Nanking” Society— Annual Report Final
Installment
How Far Has The Nanking Incident
Been Substantiated?
[Excerpted from the Afterword to “The Front-lineof Research on the Nanking ‘Incident’,” edited by
the Japan “Nanking” Society (Tendensha, 2008).]
By Sugihara Seishiro(Translated by Norman Hu)

Launching The Japan “Nanking”
Society

These are my closing remarks for the
final installment of the Japan “Nanking”
Society’s annual report, a review of theyear’s research, entitled “The Front-lineof Research on the Nanking ‘Incident’,”(formerly known as “The Front-line of
Research on the Nanking ‘Massacre’”from 2002 through 2004). This somewhat
lengthy presentation summarizes thescholarly achievements by the Japan“Nanking” Society over past eight-year
period.
On December 6, 2007, at Tokyo’s Kudan
Kaikan, a conference—The Peoples’
Gathering for the 70th Anniversary of theFall of Nanking: The Truth Behind the
Nanking Incident as Revealed in the
Words of War Heroes—was convened by
the Committee for the Examination of theFacts about Nanking (Kase Hideaki,
chairman), and was attended by a large
number of leading members of the Japan“Nanking” Society. The conference wasa forum to bear witness to the final
testimonies of war heroes to mark the70th anniversary of the Nanking Incident.
Mr. Kase made the following remarks in
his introductory welcome to theconference. His presentation i truly
brought the issue back to life:“Seventy years ago on December 13[1937], our troops captured Nanking, thecapital of Nationalist China. EventuallyJapan lost the war and the Allied nations
convened the so-called Tokyo Trial;
although the United States took theleading role in organizing this tribunal,
the U. S. had dropped atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and hadcommitted other massacres in violationof international law, starting with thefirebombing of Tokyo on March 10[1945], also known as the Great Tokyo
Air Raid. To carry on with the Tokyo
Trial, it became necessary to show thatJapan had committed even moreegregious atrocities—and the incident of
the so-called Great Nanking Massacre
was trumped up.”
The Japan “Nanking” Society was
founded on October 28, 2000, and waschaired by Professor Higashinakano
Shudo of Asia University. The“Nanking” Society became a platform
upon which great progress was made on
subsequent research on the Nanking
Incident. While it could be argued that
research on the Japanese side had madesome progress at the time, it was
generally accepted that a “massacre” hadindeed occurred, though views varied on
the numbers involved. However in the
Afterword of the Society’s 2002
inaugural annual report, Higashinakano
argued that, “the various lines ofindependent research will one day
converge, and will definitely produce a
coherent overall picture.” ii Subsequentdevelopments have borne this out.
As early as this 2002 inaugural edition of
the Society’s annual report, Tomisawa
Shigenobu
published“Statistical
Analysis of the ‘Nanking Incident’,” iii athorough examination of the primarysource materials concerning the Nanking
Incident. The following year (2003)
Higashinakano published “The Nanking‘Massacre’—War Propaganda during theSecond United Front between the
Chinese Communist Party and theKuomintang [Nationalist Party],” iv inwhich he uncovered “top-secret”
documents from the Museum of Chinese
Nationalist Party History in Taipei. He
discovered that the publication What War
Means: The Japanese Terror in China,
edited by Harold Timperley and which
was the first to announce to the world in
any significant way that there had been an
incident in Nanking, was, in the end, aKuomintang(KMT)
propaganda
resource edited and published by the
KMT; he also revealed that theanonymous source who claimed that
40,000 people had been massacred was infact Miner Bates, an American consultant
for the Nationalist Chinese government.
It also became apparent that during what
the Japanese side referred to at the time as“the battle to capture Nanking,” there had
been no inkling in China of the so-called
Nanking Incident. Even the KMTpropaganda piece Record of Atrocities
Committed by the Japanese Enemy
published in July 1938, less than a year
after the capture of Nanking, andproduced in order to publicize acts ofcruelty by the Japanese military,contained no criticism of any “massacre”
in Nanking. As Higashinakano pointed
out, it is clear there were no references toor criticism of any “massacre” inNanking at the 300 or so press briefings,
attended also by foreign journalists, heldby the KMT government after the fall of
Nanking. And thanks to the efforts ofother “Nanking” Society members, suchas Kobayashi Susumu and Fukunaga
Shinjiro, it is also now clear thatphotographic evidence provided by
China concerning the Nanking Incident
contain not one single image proving thatit took place. v As was pointed out by Mr.
Kase, chairman of the Committee for the
Examination of the Facts about Nanking,the entire affair was clearly trumped upby the so-called Tokyo Trial.
Moreover, for many years after the
Tokyo Trial, the Nanking Incident was
not viewed as problematic. It only flared
up as an issue in 1972 when Honda
Katsuichi, a reporter for the Asahi
Shimbun, filed a series of articles called“China Travels” in which he reported
what he saw and heard while travelingthrough China. vi
China built the “Memorial for
Compatriots Killed in the Nanking
Massacre by Japanese Forces ofAggression” in 1985, and at the
memorial’s entrance claimed that the
number of victims was 300,000.
Kitamura Minoru analyzed the origins of
the 300,000 figure in the “Nanking”
Society’s 2003 annual report, in“Establishing the Doctrine of a Great
Nanking
Massacreof
300,000— FocusingontheTimperley
Strategy.” vii
China recently said
unofficially that this figure is unreliable,

Page 2 of 19

but although the Memorial was further
expanded in 2007, the sign at the entrance
proclaiming the 300,000 victims has notbeen corrected. To mark the 70th
anniversary of the “Nanking Incident,”
several films were developed in the
United States, funded by Chinese capital,
and they were largely critical of Japan.
As anxiety in Japan grows over thesetrends, the film director Mizushima
Satoru raised funds from the public tofinance the production of a film trilogy“The Truth About Nanking” [Nankin noshinjitsu], and the first installment“SevenCondemned
Criminals”[Shichinin no shikeishu] was completed
in 2008.
I would like to pose the following
question: while scientific scrutiny has
made it abundantly clear that the Nanking
Incident was a fabrication, why does
condemnation of Japan continue in China
as before, and why does its tone growever harsher? The United States clearly
acted in error when it dropped the atomic
bombs, and pushed through the so-called
Tokyo Trial. Nowadays though, no
American public official would boast that
this tribunal was just. The defense
counsel Ben Blakeney, an American who
was at the center of the tribunal’s
proceedings, made his criticisms known
regarding the atomic bombings and theTokyo Trial. At present, no democratic
country insists upon the historicalinterpretations found in the tribunal’s
judgment that was forced on the Japanesepeople.
In the “Nanking” Society’s 2008 annual
report, Moteki Hiromichi published“Fabricating the Theory of a Nanking

Massacre of 20,000—The Correct
Interpretation of Gu Weijun’s Speech to
the Council of the League of Nations.” viii
Moteki pointed out that many believe
China has made allegations regarding the
Nanking massacre ever since the battle
for Nanking in 1937, but he demonstrated
unequivocally that no such allegations
were made in China during that time. At
the February 2nd, 1938 session of theCouncil of the League of Nations, theRepresentative of China, Gu Weijun,
gave a speech supporting the Council
president’s resolution for a peacefulsolution to the conflict in China, in which
he condemned Japan for “20,000 deaths
in Nanking”—and many in China use thisto attest to a Nanking Incident by theJapanese military. However, this figure
only emerged in articles published by the
New York Times and the Times of London,and China itself certainly did not
substantiate the incident, nor set about on
its own initiative to clarify the allegations.
Moteki also indicated that the manner inwhich these citations were used showedthat Gu Weijun himself had noconception of a “Nanking Incident” or a
“Nanking Massacre.” Any reference to“Nanking Outrages” at the time referredto the kidnappings and massacres
perpetrated in Nanking by Chinese
Northern Expeditionary Forces in 1927,
10 years earlier, and there was in 1937 noawareness of any “Nanking Incident”
perpetrated by the Japanese military.
Moreover, Moteki points out it is now
quite clear that this “Nanking Incident”
committed by the Japanese military wasconstructed for the purposes of the Tokyo
trial.

Page 3 of 19

Contrasting Methods of Warfare in
China and JapanWhy does China continue to use false
statistics and photographs and spend
huge sums of money in its condemnationof Japan? To examine this question
properly, we must look at China’s ancienthistory and the structure of its politics
and culture in particular.
China was initially unified as a nation in
221 B.C. by the first emperor of Qin. In
the process of unification, chariots madeup of horses and carts were used to wage
war. The crossbow, a smaller version of
the standard longbow, was used as aweapon to fire projectiles. The chariot’s
destructive force was devastating; and thecrossbow was easier to load than anormal bow, could shoot an arrow further,and had a greater capacity to kill or maim.
The crossbow took longer to load though,and could not match an ordinary bow in
firing arrows one after another. The firstemperor of Qin addressed this problem
by devising the novel method of lining up
archers three rows deep to fire volleys ofarrowswithout
interruption.
A
comparable example in Japanese historyis that of Oda Nobunaga during the Battleof Nagashino in 1575, where riflemenbearing matchlock muskets wereassembled three rows deep against thearmy of Takeda Katsuyori.
Compared to Chinese methods of warfare,
how did the Japanese wage war? Whenthe first emperor of Qin unified China inthe 3rd century B.C., people on theJapanese archipelago had no written
language, and literally lead a primitive
life of fishing, hunting, and gathering,and the concept of being Japanese did not
yet exist. Later, when new peoples

arrived on the Japanese islands, theybrought rice farming with them, and thisgave rise to a new culture based on thecultivation of rice. Rice was not a plant
species native to Japan. Paddies were dug
manually into which the rice was planted,
and a bountiful harvest was produced. Inorder to dig paddies by hand to raise acrop that had never been grown in Japan
before, people needed to form
communities through harmony and hard
work. And so it came to pass that acountry called “Japan” was established, aunified nation cognizant of China yet
revolving around the Yamato Court,
which pursued the culture of ricecultivation. Of course, elements ofChina’s advanced culture were adopted
throughout this process.
Let us now examine how war was
conducted in Japan. Domestic warfare in
Japan, before the establishment of themodern state by the Meiji, did not utilize
the horse-driven chariot. Chariots were
impractical in Japan with its many
mountain ranges and few plains. Even the
crossbow with its superior capacity to killand maim was never used in Japan.
What we can deduce from this is thatwars were remarkably infrequent inJapan. When they did occur they were
small in scale with few casualties.
Historians of Japan seldom mention thishistorical reality, but a keen observer
would see there were actually very few
wars, and very few people were killed inthese limited skirmishes. It might beuseful to consider some related issues, forinstance the Japanese samurai’s battle
dress: the kabuto helmet and the yoroi
body armor. Rather than stressing
practical considerations for protecting thePage 4 of 19

body, they vied with each other to be themost ostentatious. Even the katana sword,a tool to slice through the human body,was valued for its aesthetic beauty overits utility in cutting flesh, and became thesymbol of a warrior’s pride. Instead ofimproving someone’s skill to kill or
maim, martial training to use a sword or
bow was transformed into the study of
ethics to discipline the body and mind.
This is why wars in Japan were relatively
infrequent, and precisely why few people
were killed in wars.
Japan, too, went through a time in the
15th and 16th centuries—the Sengoku (orWarring States) period—which was
known for its cruelty and incessant wars.
Those associated with Oda Nobunaga
were particularly vicious. Still, theycannot compare with the cruelty of
warfare in China. Indeed, the way Oda
waged all his wars was in fact based on
examples from Chinese history. Even theinstitutional framework for the economic
stratagem of rakuichi rakuza—“freemarket, free guild”—was modeled on thenation-building methods of the Chinese
dynasties of Qin and Yuan.
On the other hand, exactly how violent
was the history of warfare in China? In
1368 Zhu Yuanzhang adopted the reignname of Hongwu when he toppled theYuan Dynasty and established the Ming.
Zhu became suspicious, though, of Hu
Weiyong, a retainer who distinguishedhimself during the dynasty’s founding,and had him executed along with 15,000
others associated with him. Other loyal
retainers were executed too, and a total of
50,000 others associated with them werealso executed. Perhaps an example inJapan where the innocent were killed

merely for being linked with someone
who was executed, were those associatedin 1595 with Toyotomi Hidetsugu,
nephew of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
Thirty-nine people were killed because of
their ties with Hidetsugu. In any case,
Hideyoshi was later criticized for thisunjust act, and it became a factor behindthe downfall of his regime.
Bushido represented a way of life forJapan’s privileged samurai (or warrior)class, and while it sometimes called formoments of extreme violence like sword
duels, such spirit could only occur in asociety where indiscriminate and savage
murders were rare. A society where
unjust killings were widespread could notgive rise to Bushido. The samurai code
was possible in Japan because there wassocial order and few unjust killings.
What about China though? China has
been perpetually at war. There have been
few undisturbed periods of peace. In
2007, Taiwanese-born Ko Bunyu, vicechairman of the Japan “Nanking” Society,published A History of Warfare—Japanand China. ix This book makes you realizethat China is unrivaled amongst all
nations when it comes to the frequency,
scale, ferocity, and cruelty of its wars.
The more often wars were fought, thecrueler they were waged.
Returning to the issue of chariots, theiruse in China was not limited to theunifying Qin Dynasty; they seemed tohave been used before that during thefounding of the Shang (c. 1600 B.C.) andZhou (c. 1050 B.C.) Dynasties, andbrought to China by nomads from
Mesopotamia. Natural disasters in China
happen on a grand scale, and it is easy toPage 5 of 19become desensitized to the cruelty of war.
However, in an expansive continent
surrounded by nomadic peoples who
might invade at any time, wars wereprone to happen, and when they did thecruelty that ensued defied description.
Armies would resort to wide-scaleplundering to obtain food and provisions
for their men and horses. Those who wereplunderedwould
suffertotal
impoverishment.
The Chinese word for “slaughter” istusha (or tosatsu, in Japanese.) The top
entry in the definition of the first half of
this term, tu (or to, in Japanese), found involume 4 of Morohashi Tetsuji’s classic
dictionaryreferenceGreat
Chinese-Japanese Dictionary reads asfollows: “To kill everything. To attack
the enemy, destroy the city, and slaughter
its inhabitants.” The entry for tusha says:“To take a city. After the city is taken, toslaughter all the people in the city.” x
When war broke out and a city was
attacked, there were civilians in the city
as well as soldiers. The side which sacked
a city, in which ordinary people werebarricaded together with soldiers, killed
everyone in that city, including thoseordinary people. This was done not only
as an act of reprisal, but also toappropriate provisions and to conserve
their use.
In China, where savage warfare of thissort took place all the time, theconsumption of human flesh wasinevitable. With a history of such cruelwarfare, cannibalism became entrenchedin Chinese culture. Ko Bunyu’s History
of Warfare cited above describes how inrecent times it also occurred during theGreat Cultural Revolution. xi Confucius
apparently consumed human flesh too.
We have mentioned how cannibalism
occurred during the Great Cultural
Revolution. In Japan, Confucius is
known as one of the world’s four great
sages and teachers of humanity, alongwith Shakyamuni, Socrates and Christ.
Confucius established in China an
enduring guide to morality and good
government, which later became known
as Confucianism, but it is said that he too
consumed human flesh. For the Japanese,
who embraced the teachings ofConfucius, this is something that no-one
would want to believe, but it seems to betrue.
Kitamura Yoshikazu published “On theStrategy to ‘Bolt the Fortress Gates andClear the Fields’—An Examination fromthe Comparative History of Civilizations
Perspective” in the “Nanking” Society’s
2003 annual report. xii In China, when acity was barricaded with ordinary people
remaining inside, the city would besecured from within while people’s
homes and assets in the areas surrounding
the city would be completely
destroyed—as Kitamura observes in his
article, this was called the strategy to‘bolt the fortress gates and clear thefields’ (jianbi qingye, in Chinese). Whenbarricading a city, the practice ofstrengthening the city’s defenses by“bolting the fortress gates” would havebeen universally accepted, but thestrategy of “clearing the fields” bydestroying the homes and assets ofnatural allies living in the surrounding
areas was surely counterintuitive. It wasdone to deny the attacking enemy accessto supplies and to make it difficult forPage 6 of 19

them to find shelter. In China, where suchextreme warfare was an everyday
occurrence, KMT troops carried out thepolicy of ‘bolting the fortress gates andclearing the fields’ in the areas
surrounding Nanking when the Japanesemilitary implemented its campaign totake that city.
What was the situation like in Japan?
Fortresses, in which a city wassurrounded by walls, did not exist. While
Japan had castles, in principle ordinary
people would not be barricaded withinthem. Only the samurai fought wars, andordinary people were generally not put inharm’s way. When soldiers enteredenemy territory, violent acts of vandalism
were not inconceivable, but such acts
would be immediately subjected to sharp
criticism, and would undermine the side
whose soldiers had committed them. In
Japan’s Warring States period, wars wererelatively larger in scale, and were fiercer
and crueler; but unlike China, ordinary
Japanese people were not attacked or
killed, nor were their assets seized. In
China, no heed was paid whatsoever tothe welfare of the general populace. Wars
were waged purely for victory, and wereconducted violently and cruelly without
consideration for the welfare of ordinary
people.
Thus, China lagged behind progress
made by human civilization. This is why
every single war in China costed so many
people their lives and resulted in so muchproperty being lost and destroyed.
What happened in Japan? When the firstemperor of Qin unified China andestablished his dynasty, the people livingon the Japanese archipelago leadprimitive lives and the concept of being
Japanese did not exist. Subsequently,
though, the Yamato Court unified thenation and under its governance there
were very few wars. And because Japan
had been administered in this manner it
was relatively free of warfare; by thelatter half of the 19th century, during the
Meiji Restoration, Japan surpassed China
in many areas, for instance in literacy
rates, in which it ranked as high as that ofEuropean countries.
Compare the situation in China and Japan
with that in Europe. Historians haveobserved how Europe has experienced
many wars. Cities were surrounded bywalls and ordinary people weresometimes barricaded inside them.
European culture evolved though aroundthe three pillars of Greek philosophy,
Roman jurisprudence, and the Christianfaith. Roman jurisprudence in particular
had a significant influence on the
structure of society, and contributed in a
major way to the question of warfare.
Specifically, ordinary people wereacquainted with the concepts of legal
freedoms and rights. With the arrival ofthe modern era, the standing of ordinary
people was raised at the same time a bodyof international law was developed toregulate warfare. Since war itself isprobably unavoidable, rules of warfare
were codified and international laws weredeveloped to keep the number ofcasualties to a minimum once theoutcome of a war was decided. Warfare
was codified and restricted, and when awar was over its outcome was subject tocertain conditions. History thereby
evolved to reduce the number of victims
of war.

Page 7 of 19

The situation in China has been quite
different. China evolved to the present
day under the political principle of“revolution through dynastic change”(ekisei kakumei). Let’s examine the caseof Zhu Wen, the man who brought about
the downfall of the Tang Dynasty. Zhu
was a brigand under the command of therebel Huang Su, but when Huang foundhimself in a disadvantageous position
Zhu turned on him and joined troops
loyal to the Tang. In recognition, he was
bestowed the honorary name of Zhu
Quanzhong (Zhu “the Completely
Loyal”). But in the end, he killed theemperor who succeeded the one he had
previously supported; later he destroyed
the Tang, and founded the Later Liang
Dynasty. The Tang, who had vaunted
their prosperity, also came to a miserable
end. It was an egalitarianism of sorts ifeven a common thief could win a war andbecome powerful enough to beemperor—but the precedent was set inthat warfare would be unencumbered byrules, and victory could be won using any
method, regardless how cruelly the war
unfolded. This is how the politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange” came about, where anything was
permitted to ensure victory, and thewinner could do as he pleased. It is themost elegant of all principles, and is, infact, a natural law seen throughout the
animal kingdom. It was inevitable that
warfare would become a creature ofendless cruelty.
While it is true that international law waslargely developed in Europe, in the end, itgoes without saying that it was only paid
lip service. Europeans employed every
guile when invading Africa and Asia, buteven under these circumstances, they

complied with international law, at least
for appearance’s sake. When Spanish
troops crushed the Incas, they formally
invoked “international law” andemployed legal institutions such as thecourt system to sentence the Incan king todeath and destroy the Incan Empire.
Therefore, when threatened with invasion,
those African and Asian countries which
could make a case under internationallaw were somehow able to stave off any
immediate danger. The Meiji Restorationin Japan was a successful example of how
this could be done.
China reacted differently, though. It wasas though the natural law found in the
animal kingdom was accepted at facevalue, that winners could do as theypleased, but losers forfeited the means toresist and had to accept any sort oftreatment without question, including
death. This was the principle by which
political power would be attained, and it
further led to the principle that ordinary
people would be forcibly cut off frompolitical power.
However, under the Yamato Court, cruelgovernance did not emerge in Japan; thepolitical rulers stood relatively close to
the people, and the connection between
the two was stronger than that in China.
Before the arrival of the People’s
Republic of China, the Chinese army
under Qing Dynasty rule and KMTcontrol was completely outclassed by
Japan’s military. A disunited politicalclass commanded the Chinese military,
and Chinese troops would not put
themselves in harm’s way for those who
ruled. In contrast, the bold fighting spiritof Japanese troops surprised the world
during the Second World War. This spirit

Page 8 of 19

was the purified essence of unity between
the nation and the people, between therulers and the ruled. This is why Japan’s
troops fought bravely for the cause of“self-existence and self-defense” (jisonjiei), and for the liberation of Asia.
We should probably further examine why
the Japanese people, with little
experience of warfare, fought as fiercely
as they did during the Greater East Asia
War. There were few domestic wars inJapan, so conversely this meant that there
was little discord between the rulers andthe ruled, and it can be said that the nationand the people were united. It ought to be
noted
that
there
was
some
narrow-mindedness, but if we accept thatat the time global issues such as
self-existence and self-defense and theliberation of Asia were accepted by many,
it is only natural that in a country where
the nation and the people are united,soldiers and ordinary people would fightbravely.
In China, on the other hand, there was nosuch unity between the nation and thepeople. Under such conditions it is not
surprising that soldiers and ordinary
people were reluctant to fight. In thepreviously cited book History of Warfare,“Nanking” Society vice-chairman Ko
Bunyu explains how Chiang Kai-sheklamented the shortcomings of theChinese troops, who could not maintainany discipline and would not protect
Chinese civilians. xiii Nor would these
civilians fight alongside Chinese troops.
China’s history of “revolution throughdynastic change” did not take the people
into consideration, so neither the people
nor the military could be expected to fightbravely. Soldiers in so-called supervisory

units, who were bunkered down in
concrete pillboxes, used machine guns tomow down friendly troops fleeing thebattlefield during the battle for Nanking,and were actually locked inside those
pillboxes with their legs shackled. Thevery existence of these “supervisory
units,” which fired upon retreating troops
to ensure no soldier could escape thebattlefield, represents a bizarre aspect ofChinese warfare; but the fact that thosewith the machine guns were also locked
inside pillboxes with their legs shackled
to prevent them from escaping too, attests
to just how anomalous Chinese warfare
was.
What Is The Nanking Massacre
Memorial?

Let us revisit the issue of the “Memorial
for Compatriots Killed in the Nanking
Massacre by Japanese Forces ofAggression.” Why does China stubbornly
persist with its accusations that the
Nanking Incident occurred, even though
it has become clear there is no evidence
to support this?
In 2007, the aforementioned Committee
for the Examination of the Facts about
Nanking sent a letter with open questions
regarding the Nanking Incident toChinese Premier Wen Jiabao who wasvisiting Japan on April 11th. The
following question appeared in the
beginning of that letter: xiv“During his lifetime the late Chairman
Mao Zedong never spoke of a massacrein Nanking. The only time he recorded
his observations about the Battle of
Nanking was during a lecture in Yenan
six months after the battle, later reprinted

Page 9 of 19

in On Protracted War (a compilation of
his speeches published in 1938), whichcontained the criticism that ‘Japanese
troops surrounded many, but killed few.’
If Nanking had actually been the scene of
the massacre of the century where
300,000 civilians were slaughtered, itwould have been highly unnatural andquite inconceivable that Mao would nothave uttered a single word about it. What
are His Excellency’s thoughts on thisfact?”
It is crucial to closely examine Mao’s
statement
that“Japanese
troopssurrounded many, but killed few.”
Wasn’t he saying, in essence, that
although a city might be sacked, military
gains would be paltry if there was nowidespread killing? For Mao Zedong,
who always claimed that “political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun,” war wasa vicious affair; what he may have meant
was that only those who surpassed allothers in ferocity and endurance could
seize political power.
We need no reminders of how
Communism gave rise to tremendous
numbers of casualties in the 20th century.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
under the leadership of Mao Zedong was
no exception when it came to bringing
about enormous death tolls. Althoughthese vast numbers may have been
unavoidable during its civil war with the
KMT, even after the establishment of thePeople’s Republic of China in 1949
millions of Chinese died because of theGreat Leap Forward and the Great
Cultural Revolution.
However, in China’s case, it would be
unfair to blame this phenomenon on

Communism alone. We must also
apportion some responsibility for allthese deaths on the political principle of“revolution through dynastic change”
which has been handed down fromancient times in China. Nakagaki Hideo
edited “A Photographic Survey of the
Guangdong Communist Party Incident,”
published in the “Nanking” Society’s
2007 annual report. xv In 1927, when
Communist troops occupied the city ofGuangdong, they perpetrated every kindof evil deed, including arson, looting,rape and murder. However, when othertroops entered the city and defeated theCommunist army, the civilian populationof Guangdong vented their anger andbrutally murdered 2,500 Communist
soldiers, including women fighters.
During this period, there were reports ofwomen with wooden poles rammed into
their sexual organs. While all these acts
cannot be blamed solely on Communist
troops, it can certainly be argued that thiswas an instance of Chinese-style armies
acting under the political principle of“revolution through dynastic change.”
We should certainly scrutinize the term
tosatsu (tusha, in Chinese) meaning“massacre” which appears in the name of
the museum that was constructed tocondemn Japan, namely the “Memorial
for Compatriots Killed in the Nanking
Massacre by Japanese Forces ofAggression,” and to condemn the
Nanking Incident based on the politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange.” As explained above, the walledcity fortresses which appeared in China
did not exist in Japan, thus the term
tosatsu in Japan did not meanslaughtering
everyone,
includingcivilians, inside such a fortress when

Page 10 of 19

sacking a city, as it does in the Chinese
sense of the word. Written characters
were invented in China, and these cameinto common usage in Japan after being
introduced there; but the term tosatsu was
only used in Japan to describe the processof producing meat for humanconsumption in which animals had to beslaughtered. The term was usedreluctantly because the process was
unavoidable.
In other words, when China built thismuseum to condemn Japan, it did so witha Chinese perspective on warfare, since
this perspective clearly did not exist inJapan. It is imperative that we clearlyrecognize this difference in attitudes
towards warfare.
In war-torn China, the defeated weretreated in a distinctly different way.
Rarely was any compassion shown forthe losers. For instance, during the Springand Autumn period (722–481 B.C.) Wu
Zixu avenged his father and brother, whowere executed by Pingwang, the king ofChu, by digging up the king’s corpse andhaving it horse-whipped 300 times.
During the more recent war between
Japan and China, it is worthwhile
examining the case of Wang Jingwei,
who was allied with Japan. Wang
cooperated with Japan and established agovernment in Nanking, but he died in1944 in Japan, far away from his
homeland, and was repatriated for burial
in the outskirts of Nanking at Plum
Blossom Hill. His grave was later
violated and replaced with a statue of
Wang on his knees with hands tiedbehind his back, and he is spat upon byvisitors.

Let us compare this with the situation in
Japan. The Mongol invasion in the 13th
century was an unprecedented national
disaster for Japan. The Japanese side haddone nothing in particular to provoke this,but was subjected to a one-sided
onslaught and all manner of cruelties.
Nevertheless, when the fighting ended
prayers were said for all the deceased
including enemy soldiers from China andKorea, in the spirit of “equality for friend
and foe alike” (onshin byodo). Enkakuji,a vast temple complex in Kamakura, wasbuilt especially for this purpose. With thishistorical perspective on warfare, there
was no way Japan, or its troops, when
capturing the city of Nanking, would
have
committed
the“massacre”
envisioned by China.
In other words, China’s continued
condemnation of a “massacre” byJapanese troops attests to the workings of
its own political principle of “revolution
through dynastic change,” and is a
projection upon Japan of China’s
perspective on warfare. China assumes,
based on its own political principles, thata “massacre” must have occurred in
Nanking when the city was taken by
China’s military, and applies thatassumption to its condemnation ofJapan’s military.
Jiang Zemin, the former president ofChina, habitually admonished Japan to“reflect on history,” but, in fact, China
itself should heed these words. China
should reflect on its past and carefully
examine its history. China must get overthe political principle of “revolution
through dynastic change,” and also theperspective on warfare which supportsthat principle.

Page 11 of 19

Japan is Poles Apart From A China
Under the Sway of “Revolution
Through Dynastic Change”

China adopted a natural law found in the
animal kingdom as a political principle,
namely that winners could do as theypleased in order to win, but losers
forfeited the means to resist and had toaccept any sort of treatment without
question, even death. As a result, China
became the dominant power in theregion.
Why, on the other hand, did Japan evolvein the other direction and develop aculture diametrically opposed to this“revolution through dynastic change”?
We must also consider this when looking
at Chinese condemnation of Japan for the
Nanking Incident.
As mentioned above, when the Qin
emperor first unified China at the end of
the 3rd century B.C., the culture of ricecultivation had found its way to someareas of the Japanese archipelago, but forthe most part Japan was inhabited bypeople who led primitive lives of fishing,hunting, and gathering, with noawareness of being Japanese. Eventually,
though, the culture of rice cultivation
spread throughout the archipelago. A
crop never before grown in Japan was
cultivated in paddies, which weremanually dug, and Japan became awealthy nation, truly “the land of thevigorous rice harvest.” The cultivation ofrice required attention to detail throughgroup efforts, and both collective
harmony and hard work were essential.
This heralded the birth of the Yamato
Court and gave rise to a unified nation.

Due to its enormous size and relatively
advanced culture, China placed itself at
the center of the world. Neighboring
countries were considered barbaric, andwere designated as subject states, or
tributary states obliged to offer tribute. In
antiquity, Japan was also a tributary state
for a time, but at the beginning of the 7th
century, Prince Shotoku sent a formal
state letter to Emperor Yang of Sui,
declaring “The Emperor of the land
where the Sun rises sends a letter to theEmperor of the land where the Sun sets.”
This established Japan as China’s equal,
and in a position independent of China.
Under the rule of the Yamato Court,
control of real political power was
handed down through the generations;but although this dynasty lost its politicalpower long ago, it still survives intact tothe present day. Clearly this is a result of
the rejection of China’s political principleof “revolution through dynastic change.”
The significance of this point can beillustrated by a comparison with Korea.
Unlike China, Korea experienced
relatively few dynastic changes, so to thisextent it did not completely embrace theprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange.” Ancient Korea was divided into
the three kingdoms of Koguryo, Silla andPaekche, but was later unified by Silla in
the 7th century. Silla sought military
assistance from the Chinese Tang
Dynasty, and so was no longer able todevelop a relationship with China ofequality and independence. In the 10th
century, power passed peacefully from
Silla to Koryo, which was clearly not acase of “revolution through dynasticchange.” However at the turn of the 14th
century, the Yi Dynasty wrested control

Page 12 of 19

from the Koryo when Yi Song-gye, a
Koryo retainer, successfully mounted acoup d’état, a typical example of“revolution through dynastic change.” To
root out all the surviving Koryo loyalists
who had gone into hiding, Yi called forthem to come forward and take sanctuary
on Cheju Island; but en route the boattransporting them there was sunk, killing
everyone on board.
Established in this manner, the Yi
Dynasty was unable to win the loyalty ofthe people. Paradoxically, it also madethe Yi Dynasty more concerned withmaintaining its own power than seeing to
the welfare and prosperity of the people.
Over time, it became impossible for the
Yi Dynasty to win the allegiance of thepeople, and this is what brought about theappalling developments in the final yearsof the Yi.
What was the situation in Japan? While
the Yamato Court faced a number ofcrises in its long history, let’s consider asituation from more recent times, forinstance the case of Oda Nobunaga fromJapan’s Warring States period of the 16th
century. We may never know what Oda
ultimately had in mind for the Japaneseemperor; but if, for example, he hadcopied China and committed regicide,
Oda probably wouldn’t have been able tobecome emperor himself, given Japan’s
history and the resolute rejection of thepolitical principle of “revolution throughdynastic change.” The Yamato Court
survived beyond this period, and in the
mid-19th century played the central rolein a restoration that saved the nation.
Japan’s rejection of the political principleof “revolution through dynastic change”

was not only significant in the narrow
sense of the nation’s politicaldevelopment. It was also extremely
beneficial for the development andevolution of Japanese culture. This isquite apparent if we look at thedevelopment of Buddhism in Japan.
Buddhism flourished in China and Korea
in the 6th century, and as a result Japan
also enthusiastically embraced Buddhism.
Today, though, China and Korea are nolonger Buddhist nations with Buddhist
temples wherever you go. These
countries were subject to “revolution
throughdynasticchange”
andexperienced extended periods in which
Buddhism was capriciously destroyed. In
Korea, when the Koryo Dynasty replaced
Silla, it zealously preserved Buddhism;and despite outrages perpetrated by Yuan
invaders, Buddhism was still maintained
under the protection of the Koryo
Dynasty. However the Yi Dynasty, which
overthrew Koryo with military assistancefrom the Ming, was unable to gain thetrust of the Buddhist world. This brought
about a great suppression of Buddhism
by the Yi. In Japan, though, those who
ruled the country with real politicalpower were bestowed with that authority
by the Yamato Court, which was
devoutly Buddhist, thus, the motive orneed to suppress Buddhism did not arise.
As a result, cultural remnants
accumulated from the past were rarely
deliberately destroyed, and new culture
developed alongside pre-existing culture.
Consequently, in the 19th century during
the last days of the Tokugawa Shogunate,
Japan had become a cultured nation witha people whose literacy rate wascomparable to those in Europe and theUnited States, and greatly surpassed

Page 13 of 19

those in China or Korea. And it was thiswhich enabled Japan to keep its
independence when confronted by theUnited States and the European powers.
Political Principles in China Versus
EuropeAspreviously
discussed,thephenomenon in China of “revolution
through dynastic change”— where
victory can be attained by any means
necessary, the winner may do as hepleases, and the loser has no choice but toacceptany
treatment
includingdeath—has transformed a natural law
seen in the animal kingdom into a
political principle. But in the 21st century,
this political principle is clearly
unacceptable to humanity. It is
unacceptable, not only for China’s
neighbors and the citizens of the world,
but also for the people of China. The
Chinese people cannot trust agovernment that is bound by the politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange.” That is why the people of China
invariably pursue immediate gains, andseldom demonstrate civic virtues.
However, the Chinese people must ask
themselves what sort of government theywant to rule them and what sort ofcountry they desire. Under a national
polity for which the people take no
responsibility, every individual is forced
to pursue immediate gain.
We should acknowledge that, of all
China’s successive dynasties, theChinese Communist Party (CCP) has
done the most for the people’s welfare;however it still won’t transfer to thepeople authority to form a government.

With the reader’s forbearance, I shouldlike to mention one of my own
publications here. In 2005, I wrote a booktitled Time For a Democratic Party [ofJapan] to Emerge, xvi in which I argued
that Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping
opened up the economy and built thefoundation which enabled China to be theeconomic power that it is today.
Nevertheless, Deng should haveliberalized the political system rather
than the economy. It may have been
problematic to transform a Communist
regime overnight into a democratic
country based on free elections by theentire population; but it should have beenpossible to take gradual steps towards
democracy, for instance, by allowing thepeople to cast votes in support ofrepresentatives to the National People’s
Congress. Economies will develop
spontaneously if people are allowed toenjoy freedom and public order, so inordertoencourage
economicdevelopment, Deng should also havefreed up the political system wherevernecessary.
However, when the Tiananmen Incident
occurred, Deng rejected politicalliberalization by saying that “if we give
way, the People’s Republic of China will
be lost.” Clearly he was still under thesway of the principle of “revolution
through dynastic change.” Deng
encouraged economic liberalization,
somethingwhichsurelybetraysCommunist ideals, but could not tolerate
political liberalization; so it is quite clear
he was more influenced by the principleof “revolution through dynastic change”
than by Communism. Even if China isdemocratized and one-party rule by the
CCP crumbles, the country and thePage 14 of 19

people will not cease to exist. For the
CCP, which holds the Chinese people
dear, surely its ultimate goal for its
citizenry is precisely that a sound nationand prudent people will emerge. By
encouraging economic liberalization,
which betrays Communist ideals, yetrejecting political liberalization, we must
conclude that the current regime under
the CCP is following the principle of“revolution through dynastic change.”
To make matters worse, in order for the
CCP regime to maintain itself today, itfinds it necessary to adopt a hostile policy
towards Japan. Even if for argument’s
sake the Nanking Incident indeed
resulted in 300,000 victims, the CCP
feigns ignorance of its own enormous
death toll which in fact vastly exceeds
this number; the CCP continues tocondemn Japan for the Nanking Incident
despite the proven lack of credible
evidence, because the regime’s goal is tomaintain itself based on the principle of“revolution through dynastic change.”
This reflects China’s perspective on
warfare, something which humanity
should abandon. Furthermore, people indemocratic countries around the world
shouldresolutely
rejectthiscondemnation of Japan.
Europe has striven to advance civilizationand society based on the three pillars of
Greek philosophy, Roman jurisprudence,and the Christian faith. Wars may be
unavoidable, but efforts have been madeto keep their number to a minimum, andto minimize the number of their victims
as well; efforts continue to be made to
improve the way of life for humanity andfor society. Countries have placed thebasis for sovereignty with the people,
thereby producing democratic nations.
Japan evolved independently of bothGreekphilosophy
and
Roman
jurisprudence, which are occupied withfreedoms and rights, and was largely
untouched by the tenets of Christianity.
Yet there were relatively few wars inJapan, and those that did occur caused
very few casualties; the first principle ofgovernment was to act on behalf of thepeople, and the result was that Japan, like
Europe evolved towards universal
principles for a way of life for humanity
and society. Japan maintained a discrete
distance from its giant neighbor China,
neither staying too close nor straying too
far, and was seldom invaded because it
was surrounded by water; the Yamato
Court came into being based on theculture of rice cultivation, namely
growing a crop not previously found inJapan, and survives to this day without
ever being endangered by the politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange.” Progress continues towards
universal principles for the existence ofhumanity and for society.
Let’s consider the situation in Korea.
Although Korea felt intimidated by China,
it was surrounded by water on three sides
so could relatively easily reject outside
interference; compared to China it wasable to avoid the path of “revolution
through dynastic change” for the mostpart. However its common border with
China to the north meant it couldn’t set
aside this political principle entirely.
With China as a neighbor that believedthat the powerful could do as they pleased
precisely because they were strong,
Korea too essentially followed thisPage 15 of 19

principle and just barely stayed clear of
the path of “revolution through dynasticchange.”Through the ages, Europe and Japan had
hardly any contact at all, and followed
distinct historical paths determined bydifferent circumstances; yet in the end,
both are conflict-free, both havediscovered the shared ideals ofgovernment conducted on behalf of thepeople, and both have advanced along acommon universal direction.
However, today, in the 21st century, thetime has come again to reconsider
matters. In ancient times, when there wasthought to be no world beyond Asia,
China, the largest country in the known
world, followed the political principle inwhich the powerful could do as theypleased precisely because they werestrong, and its neighbors were forced toconform to this. Today, though, theknown world extends to the entire planetand comprises all the continents
including Europe, the Americas, Africa,
etc. In today’s world, China and Korea
have the capacity to resist any natural law,
including the political principle of“revolution through dynastic change.”
Although the Chinese people at thepresent time sometimes have trouble withethics, we should try to understand that toa degree this is an unavoidableconsequence of the pressure of thispolitical principle, and for the sake of theChinese people as well, we must help
bring about political liberalization anddemocratization in China. And the peopleof China must try to understand that partof the hostility currently directed towards
Japan has actually been fabricated by the
CCP regime to suit its own purposes.

The Japanese Government Has A
Duty to Translate and Disseminate the
Research Findings of The Japan“Nanking” Society

The Japan “Nanking” Society wasestablished on October 28th, 2000, and atthat time no-one could have anticipatedthe volume of solid research that would
be achieved. However, great strides weremade in this research, thanks, inparticular, to the work of our Society’s
chairman Higashinakano Shudo, and it
has now become clear that, while legal
executions were carried out in Nanking,there were certainly not enough illegal
killings to warrant calling it a“massacre.” In his article “How Should
We View Executions Conducted by theJapanese Military?” in the Society’s mostrecentannualreport(2008),
Higashinakano methodically settles thisfinal doubt about the Nanking Incident.
For Chinese soldiers to be disarmed andplaced under the jurisdiction of theJapanese military, and then, nonetheless,to have been executed, was extremely
regrettable, and certainly brought nocredit to the Japanese military, even if
there had been no other viable
alternative; but it is now virtuallyunmistakable that, in the strictest sense,no large-scale illegal killings occurred.,General Tang Shengzhi, charged with thedefense of Nanking, abandoned his
troops and fled, which caused much of
the chaos, but he was never held toaccount for this, despite increasing thenumber of victims. Responsibility mustalso be extended to Chiang Kai-shek.
There was clearly a disparity between the
KMT troops, who were under the sway ofthe political principle of “revolution
through dynastic change,” and JapanesePage 16 of 19

troops, who were not; yet the present
CCP regime, which still operates underthat political principle, continues tocondemn Japan’s prewar troops who
were not at all operating under thatprinciple.
The Chinese government wants toregister the “Memorial for Compatriots
Killed in the Nanking Massacre by
Japanese Forces of Aggression” as a
World Heritage Site. Present researchdevelopments, directed largely by theJapan “Nanking” Society, show how
ridiculous these moves by the Chinese
government are, but we should recognizethat this government is under the sway ofthe political principle of “revolution
through dynastic change,” which people
world-wide should try to eradicate, andthat it is a reflection of China’s cruelperspective on warfare. We must also
acknowledge that efforts to eradicate thisought to be made in concert with people
from the democratic nations of the world.
We should bear in mind that the divide
between Chinese condemnation of Japanover the Nanking Incident, and theJapanese rebuttal that there was no
incident in Nanking, is in fact a struggle
between the shortsighted politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange” and universal tenets whichchallenge “revolution through dynasticchange.”We should remember that, throughout theworld, strength is the ultimate key topolitical power. When an extremely
powerful China makes false accusations,the political repercussions reverberatebecause of that power. When a weak
country makes false statements it usuallyends up being the laughing stock, but thefalsehoods of a powerful country yieldpolitical results. This is clearly thepolitical principle of “revolution throughdynastic change” at work.
In the face of all this, what options areopen to Japan, which lacks vast reservesof power? When the powerless resort tosimple tricks, contrary to expectation,
this can leave them open to being
manipulated. It is essential that, rather
than spending energy on perfecting mere
tricks, we must say what needs to be said
in a consistent manner, and continue todisseminate accurate information at all
times. And when doing so, we should
always take the broader perspective that
we need to eradicate the politicalprinciple of “revolution through dynasticchange” which gives rise to China’s
irrational criticisms, for the sake of boththe people of China in the 21st century
and the people of the world.
At the annual meeting of the “Nanking”
Society held on December 4th, 2007, a
resolution was passed to “request budget
allocations for the production oftranslated materials to defend the honorof Japan,” and was addressed to
Hiranuma Takeo, Chairman of “TheCommittee of Diet Members Seeking theRemoval of Incorrect Photos from
China’s
Anti-Japanese
Memorial
Museum.” This resolution was handed to
Inada Tomomi, Secretary-General of thisDiet committee, on April 14th, 2008.
Even though Japan’s reputation has been
severely damaged because of allegations
regarding the Nanking Incident, the factthat the Japanese government has notcome up with any translated materials tocounter or explain these allegations,clearly reveals its negligence. The case

Page 17 of 19

must be made that the government has a
responsibility to translate the research
results of the Japan “Nanking” Society.
This is essential, not just for our own
people in Japan, but also for the people of
the world, including those of China. I
cannot emphasize this enough inconcluding this final edition of the“Nanking” Society’s annual report,
which has produced such outstanding
results.
Lastly, although the “Nanking” Society
will work in the future on publishingprimary source materials such as detailed
reports from the battlefield and staff
diaries, I would like to extend my deepest
gratitude on behalf of the Society to Mr.
Imamura Hiroshi, editor at Tendensha
Publishers, who has been in charge ofediting these annual reports over the past
six years.

FG
Translator’s note: Japanese, Chinese, and Koreannames appear in the traditional manner withfamily names first. For instance, the author’s
family name is “Sugihara.”i

Committee for the Examination of the Facts
about Nanking, “The Truth Behind the Nanking
Incident as Revealed in the Words of War
Heroes.” The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual
Report, “The Front-line of Research on the
Nanking ‘Incident’” Heisei 20 (Final Edition)(Tendensha 2008), p. 158.
ii
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Massacre’” Heisei 14 (Tendensha 2002), p. 253,
Higashinakano, Shudo, “Afterword.”iii

Ibid, pp. 61-169, Tomisawa, Shigenobu,“Statistical Analysis of the ‘Nanking Incident’.”iv
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Massacre’” Heisei 15 (Tendensha 2003), pp.
255-319, Higashinakano, Shudo, “The Nanking‘Massacre’—War Propaganda during the Second
United Front between the Chinese Communist
Party and the Kuomintang [Nationalist Party].”v
Higashinakano, Shudo, Susumu Kobayashi &Shinjiro Fukunaga, Nankin Jiken “shoko
shashin” wo kensho suru [Analyzing “thephotographic evidence” regarding the Nanking
Incident] (Soshisha, 2005). The three authors
thoroughly examined (approximately) 30,000
photographs which have been used to substantiate
the “Great Nanking Massacre” and proved that
not a single one of them could pass as evidence
that any such massacre took place. The authors
tracked down the original citations for each of thevast array of photographs, and in some cases
analyzedthephotosthemselves,anddemonstrated that when Nanking fell to theJapanese army, not a single photo could serve as
evidence that large-scale massacres, rapes, arson,
or looting took place. They found that most of thephotographs fell into one of the following
categories: they had been taken by the Chinese
military at other times and places, but weredeliberately misused; they were photos that had
been deliberately fabricated by modifying suchphotos or producing composites of such photos;
they were fabricated or posed at other times foruse during the war of resistance against Japan; orthey were photographs taken by the Japanese side,
but deliberately affixed with incorrect titles togive a completely misleading impression.
vi
Honda, Katsukichi, Chugoku no Tabi,
Asahishimbunsha, 1972.
vii
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Massacre’” Heisei 15 (Tendensha 2003), pp
41-74, Kitamura, Minoru, “Establishing theDoctrine of a Great Nanking Massacre of
300,000—Focusing on the Timperley Strategy.”viii
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Incident’” Heisei 20 (Final Edition) (Tendensha
2008), pp. 61-85, Moteki, Hiromichi,“Fabricating the Theory of a Nanking Massacreof 20,000—The Correct Interpretation of Gu

Page 18 of 19

Weijun’s Speech to the Council of the League of
Nations.” Mention of Moteki’s article wasomitted from the author’s original Japaneseversion of the present essay, but Sugihara felt it
was important enough to include here for the
benefit of researchers outside of Japan. Referencematerials related to the Moteki argument may befound in: Sakita, Kenkichi, trans., Kokusai
Renmei Rijikai - Dairokkai kaigiroku [Council ofthe League of Nations—Record of the Sixth
Session], pp. 87-119.
ix
Ko Bunyu, Senso no rekishi—Nihon to Chugoku,
WAC Publishing, 2007.
x
Morohashi, Tetsuji, Dai Kan-Wa Jiten,
Taishukan Shoten, 1957, vol. 4, p. 162.
xi
Ko, ibid, p. 189.
xii
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Massacre’” Heisei 15 (Tendensha 2003), pp.
75-139, Kitamura, Yoshikazu, “On the Strategy
to ‘Bolt the Fortress Gates and Clear the
Fields’—An Examination from the Comparative
History of Civilizations Perspective.”
xiii
Ko, ibid., pp. 172-5.
xiv
The text of this letter may be found on
pp. 208-9 of the magazine WiLL (WAC
Publishing, 2007). The open letter was given by
the Committee for the Examination of the Facts
about Nanking to President Hu Jintao on May 5,2008, and an English translation was madeavailable at the website of the Society for theDissemination of Historical Fact.
xv
The Japan “Nanking” Society Annual Report,“The Front-line of Research on the Nanking‘Incident’” Heisei 19 (Tendensha 2007),
pp. 151-8, Nakagaki, Hideo, “A Photographic
Survey of the Guangdong Communist Party
Incident.”
xvi
Sugihara, Seishiro, Minshuto wa imakoso
sonzaikan wo shimesu toki, Bunka Shobo
Hakubunsha, 2005, pp. 217-21.

Page 19 of 19